Consensus Argument Proves Climate Science Is Political.

UPDATE: I’ve added a video at the end that speaks to the consensus thinking. Marc Morano’s arguments leaves the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s Anna Rose speechless. – Anthony

Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball

A 2005 photograph of James Lovelock, scientist and author best known for the Gaia hypothesis. Photograph taken by Bruno Comby of Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Claims of a consensus was an early sign climate science was political. It was used to support official science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a public relations campaign to offset and divert from bad science, inadequate data, and incorrect assumptions. It’s in use again as the science of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis fails and people are not persuaded.

Many scientists were fooled, including James Lovelock, a central figure to environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis. In 2007 he said,

“Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.”

Recently he revised his view;

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.”

“We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”

How could a reputable scientist be so wrong?

Some words have different meanings for the public than for professionals. For example, calling someone a skeptic is considered derogatory, yet it’s a necessity for a scientist. When warming became climate change skeptics became deniers, a nasty ambiguous word. It means you refuse to acknowledge information, but it’s specifically used for a few who deny the holocaust, arguably the most horrendous event in history.

There’s a negative implication to the word consensus. If you’re not part of it you’re out-of-step, stupid, antisocial, or all three. There’s no consensus in science. Even in politics it’s rare to assign a number to a consensus. Apparently to pretend credibility current users say there’s a 97 percent consensus about IPCC climate science.

Numerical measures of the consensus argument appeared early in climate As I recall, approximately 6000 people associated with the IPCC represented the original consensus. That number decreased to 2500 today, but they’re still the consensus according to RealClimate, the web site about which Michael Mann wrote in a 2004 email,

“…the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about.”

We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).

This admits consensus is unnecessary in science, but necessary for climate science “for public presentation” or propaganda.
It’s another circular argument that pervade IPCC science and politics. For example, they hypothesize that CO2 causes temperature increase, program a computer model accordingly, then say the model proves that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. RealClimate says,

“The main points that most would agree on as “the consensus” are:
1.The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]2.People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3.If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]4.(This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

I’ve put those four points in rough order of certainty. The last one is in brackets because whilst many would agree, many others (who agree with 1-3) would not, at least without qualification. It’s probably not a part of the core consensus in the way 1-3 are.”

So the consensus is their IPCC Reports.
Here are the facts of the consensus today.
1.The rise of 0.6°C has an error of ±0.2°C or 33 percent – which is scientifically meaningless. Phil Jones a senior member of the IPCC produced the number. The earth is not warming any more.
2.The only evidence people are the cause is in their computer models.
3. Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase in every single record anywhere, except in their computer models.
4.An application of the precautionary principle.
RealClimate said about consensus,

“In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it.”

But climate science of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia was not normal practice: a political consensus was their only hope. As Michael Crichton said,

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Sounds familiar; the science is settled, and the debate is over because there’s a consensus.

=================================================================

Added: This video showing Marc Morano trying to get an answer out of the leader of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s Anna Rose is telling.

Imagine Einstein arguing for a consensus on General Relativity, or Einstein pushing for a consensus on the Universal Theory of Gravitation, or Kepler pushing for a consensus on the view that planets travel in ellipitcal orbits with the period of orbit proportional to the radius to the 2/3 power. Consensus is irrelevant when arguing for or against a scientific theory.

Consensus is EVERYTHING when pushing for a political agenda in a democracy.

I agree that the “denier” label is offensive not only for the implicit equation of skeptics of “the consensus” on global warming to people who deny the evidence on the holocaust but also because it suggests that skeptics “refuse to acknowledge information.” It effectively accuses skeptics of being dishonest. It implies they know, understand and really accept the case that has been made but for some ulterior motive claim otherwise. Where is the evidence that anyone who has been labelled a “denier” on the global warming consensus has said one thing in public and another in private? Does anyone know of a single example?

“Many scientists were fooled, including James Lovelock, a central figure to environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis.”

I do not think that he was fooled but rather that he was part of the circle that came up with the idea to blame CO2 for all evils in the first place. And that he consciously exploited the CAGW conjecture he himself instigated to sell more of his alarmist books, get more influential, promote his unproveable Gaia conjecture – one cannot really call it a theory; it is not science but fiction. His current reversal is, again, an attempt at getting attention; getting traffic if you will. He is simply a cunning salesman posing as a scientist.

Currently I work for a firm which uses consensus as a process to determine the appropriateness of pursuing technical projects, i.e. looking for oil and gas deposits. I’ve realised that “consensus” is a term for a no-fault program: whatever happens is nobody’s fault, because everyone has to stand up and agree to go along. All it takes is one to say he isn’t sure, not just disagrees, and the project stops. But that is considered okay, as a possible problem was averted.

Consensus approaches are common in Canada in the First Nations communities. The idea is that things which affect equal members of a community should have the buy-in from all the members such that future internal problems are avoided. Harmony does not happen when someone blames someone else for their loss or harm. You want harmony when your day-to-day survival depends on working together against a danger larger than the individual. What this frive for consensus does, though, is stop, not just slow down, progress or change.

There is no benefit in supporting an unknown item when you are doing “okay” with the status quo. Even bad is okay when you might be facing worse. Another term I’m familiar with in my business is “nobody moves, nobody gets hurt”. Whether in business or in society, consensus is ultimately counter-productive. It works to halt adaptability in the face of new challenges, but it has the advantage of maintaining power and respect for those currently in power and holding respect, and it keeps all equal. Even if equal is not very good.

Consensus in climate science is about avoiding censure, and its resultant separation from the hand-holding crowd. With children, we call what is being avoided “separation anxiety”. We know there have been firings based on a scientist’s skepticism. Being on the out is painful financially, socially and career-wise. Nobody wants that, especially if they have dependents.

No-fault thinking. Another industry term: nobody moves, nobody gets hurt. The object is the reasuring, feel-good, communal group-hug. The wolves may be drawing close, but we are happy with ourself image, our place in the village. And nobody is going to point a finger in our direction.

I suggest that we send a collective Thank You and Congratulations to James Lovelock. He deserves both, as well as widespread recognition for having the courage to admit he was wrong – something most people who are in a public position rarely do.

If Mr. Lovelock happens to look in here, then I extend my personal thanks, and a welcome to the world of the sceptics.

Imagine Einstein arguing for a consensus on General Relativity, or Einstein pushing for a consensus on the Universal Theory of Gravitation, or Kepler pushing for a consensus on the view that planets travel in ellipitcal orbits with the period of orbit proportional to the radius to the 2/3 power. Consensus is irrelevant when arguing for or against a scientific theory.

Or rather, in all of these cases they were arguing against a pervasive, authoritative scientific consensus, and it took decades to centuries to conclusively overturn that consensus even though it was wrong!

Kepler’s Laws (along with the theory of Copernicus, the observations of Galileo, and ultimately the work of Newton that derived those laws as a consequence of a sound theory of nature) overturned a primarily religious geocentric model that was not only the prevailing consensus, but was “obviously” correct and written down in the world’s most supposedly authoritative text, the Bible. Einstein had to overcome considerable opposition from those that hung on to the consensus view (established by Newton and transformed into a near-religious belief as a basis for science that for the most part worked very well) that space was the “stage” upon which physics occurred and time was the independent variable that drives what we experience as dynamics and replace it with one where space-time is neither flat nor a stage but is rather an actual participant in physics and dynamics.

And in turn, they both may be wrong — almost certainly are wrong, if prevailing theories that are better still turn out to be right.

In physics, at least, we have learned the hard way that consensus exists to be broken. That isn’t to say we don’t assign a great deal of belief to various propositions — we do — it’s just that we try hard to remember that they could be false even as we do. I believe in (Newtonian) gravity and it is almost certainly almost right for most purposes, but I recognize that there is a big gap between Newtonian gravity (interaction as a field), Einsteinian general relativity (interaction as curvature of spacetime), and relativistic quantum field theory at the Planck scale (where neither of these could possibly be correct).

The great tragedy of climate science is that its conclusions are presented as being just as certain as Newton’s Law of Gravitation, which is an abuse in every sense of the word — even before one recognizes that Newton’s Law of Gravitation is at best an approximate result that works pretty well for planets and maybe not so well for either black holes or at the granularity of quantum spacetime.

Now that Lovelock has recanted shouldn’t the consensus percentage go
from 97% to 95%?
I contend there is an IPCC Certainty Principle which says, “The less one knows
about an issue the more certain one is about it.”
I contend the Precautionary Principle is not a principle. People wouldn’t get out
of bed if it were. (Maybe that’s why a lot of those people work in their PJs. sarc/)

We need to take pot shots at the contrived consensus wherever we can. One spot: meteorologists. While post-1990 climate scientists might march in lockstep because all of them had to agree with the Chicken Littles in order to get into the club, meteorologists don’t have a a 97% agreement with agw, or 87%, or 67%, or 51%, or 36%…

There is an important difference between science for its own sake, where I agree consensus is irrelevant, and science used to inform public policy. I also agree that with respect to climate science and a number of other fields public policy debate becomes politicized and highly unscientific – downright ugly as a matter of fact. It is easy to criticize all of this; I do it myself all the time. But when you get right down to it, what choice do we have?

Science for its own sake can afford to wait generations to get a “right” answer. In fact, science for its own sake NEVER has to decide on a right answer; science should always be prepared to discover that some widely believed theory, say Classical Dynamics, is incorrect in some important way.

But when, in an immature field of science, there is a plausible argument and some evidence for an effect that will destroy us and everything we care about if we don’t act immediately, what SHOULD we do if we don’t allow ourselves to use heuristic reasoning?

Forget the climate debate for a moment. If there were a 50% chance that the world would be destroyed if we didn’t act quickly on some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis, and if it would only cost a little to act and avoid the risk, would it be reasonable to reject action on the grounds that the science is un-settled? If 70-80% of scientists agreed that the hypothesis was probably correct, would it really be reasonable to argue that the “consensus argument” is not scientifically valid and so reject action?

Most human reasoning is heuristic. Public policy is not science. We often have to make choices based on an incomplete understanding of a situation. We’re obviously not very good at this, but I think we should try to get better and not simply condemn the whole enterprise.

“I do not think that he was fooled but rather that he was part of the circle that came up with the idea to blame CO2 for all evils in the first place.”

I must agree with DirkH here. I think he is one of the gang who is behind the whole setup.
They want to deconstruct the western civilisation, just like Pol Pot wanted. But they were thinking much grander thoughts than Pol Pot. They wanted to do it globally, using the UN as the tool.

They are still at it, they won’t give up. But now they have renamed it to “sustainability”.

Scientists are influenced by the willing of funding authorities to support research that is consistent with warming agenda. And by lower barriers to publication when their drafts are evaluated based on the merits of the ideology rather than the science.

The public at large have been similarly swept along by a complicit main stream media who have long known that alarmist copy sells. If it bleeds, it leads!

When scientists and journalists suspend skepticism in favor of the mighty dollar, we’re in deep doo doo and that is exactly what has happened.

Such a manipulation of consensus is the result of propaganda created according to well documented guidelines:

“Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.”

PeterGeorge hits on exactly the point: When there are no public policy considerations or attempt to summarize the current state of the science (e.g., in writing a review article or a textbook), it becomes essentially irrelevant to determine the current state of the science and the concept of consensus is not particularly useful. However, when there are any sort of public policy considerations or an attempt to summarize the current state of the science, then consensus becomes a useful concept. It’s as simple as that.

And, I think people who don’t seem capable of understanding it when they don’t like what the scientific consensus says are able to understand it when they do like what the consensus says. For example, I think most people here would agree that there is a scientific consensus regarding evolution as describing the current biological diversity and how it changed over time and would agree that this has policy implications regarding what should be taught in the science classrooms of our schools on the subject.

Likewise, I think most people here would probably agree that there is a consensus among scientists that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones is of much too low a frequency to cause cancer or other biological harms by any currently-understood process and hence would not support public policy moves of draconian bans on cell phone use for the purpose of preventing biological harm. (Annoyance caused by cell phones is another issue.)

In the USA we have an historical figure, once a masterful military leader, now the icon for the act of treason. I find a similarity in James Lovelock, once a significant scientist as is written – but almost hidden – in his wikipedia “Career” entry.

The key part is: “In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. ”

As I recall, Lovelock’s position was that life produces gases that are detectable via instruments and if a planet’s atmosphere did not have such a signature then there was little or no chance of life being there. His later “theory” has tainted the earlier work he did. Maybe as DirkH (8:26 am) says, we now have an icon for a “cunning salesman.”

Currently I work for a firm which uses consensus as a process to determine the appropriateness of pursuing technical projects, i.e. looking for oil and gas deposits. I’ve realised that “consensus” is a term for a no-fault program: whatever happens is nobody’s fault, because everyone has to stand up and agree to go along

Doug, when I hold engineering meetings to get everyone on board the project, I joke about spreading the guilt :-)

On the subject of the video, fascinating. I would (and I’m not being a nitpicker, nor am I defending her stance) say that she wasn’t left speechless, but that she was simply doing what she said she would do at the beginning of the clip: refusing to answer. From what little I can find out about her, however, she does not appear to be a “climate” scientist, and therefore her statement about only debating climate scientists smacks of elitism. What makes *her* so bloody special? And why, exactly, is it OK for her to call anyone names whilst complaining they do the same? Hypocrisy, and a rather transparent attempt to control whatever debate might have occurred.

Please give me one good example of enormous damage to the world population, or even people in general, done by an unresolved scientific issue that took generations for scientists to resolve (aside from public-policy driven pseudoscience like eugenics, which is the issue alarmist science most closely resembles). I’m a historian of science and I cannot think of any examples that emanate from within a scientific community.

As far as I can see “consensus” in this case meant a dozen climatologists in a team agreed, 3 climatologists not in the team were excluded for not agreeing and 6000 other scientists simply assumed that the dozen climatologists that were the loudest must be right because the UN said they were and then monitored the alleged “impacts” of AGW in nature. This, surely, is the message of the “Climategate” emails.

I confess that I believed in AGW for about ten years. With hindsight, ironically, I must have become convinced of its truth at just about the time the Earth stopped warming.
My belief evaporated quite suddenly in 2006. Why ? Because it suddenly dawned on me that all the proponents of the theory had fallen back on the ‘consensus’ argument.
I’m not a scientist, but I understand enough about science to realise that when people use the argument of consensus, it means they’ve lost the scientific argument. Scientific arguments are based on evidence, and only on evidence. It really is that simple.
When the AGW theory is finally dead and buried, I believe this is the one lesson most people need to take away from it. Whenever someone tries to support a scientific proposition using the word ‘consensus’ – you know you’re being had.

Likewise, I think most people here would probably agree that there is a consensus among scientists that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones is of much too low a frequency to cause cancer or other biological harms by any currently-understood process and hence would not support public policy moves of draconian bans on cell phone use for the purpose of preventing biological harm.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about; do you know the difference between frequency and power? All cell phone frequencies are good for cooking brains. The only thing a cell phone lacks for warming up your food is transmitted power.

The interview between Rose and Morano is all well and good but if Marc has been over the top in his criticism of the warmers then young Anna will not drop her guard. Far better to introduce her to Roy Spencer and Jon Cristie.

UK Met office got it wrong and they want more money for better computers.
BBC News
30 April 2012 Last updated at 17:52
April is the wettest month for 100 years
Aerial video shows Somerset floods
Man dies as floods create havoc
Somerset’s rivers on flood alert
Badminton Horse Trials cancelled
This has been the wettest April in the UK in over a century, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.

Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12
The forecast presented here is for April and the average of the April-May-June period for the United Kingdom as a whole.
This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.

SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole,

and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.

With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

Provably true. The alarmist “consensus” has repeatedly tried to get enough signatures to surpass the OISM Petition. They have failed miserably, unable to get even one-tenth the OISM number of signatures. Thus, their claims of “consensus” are an outright lie.

Joel Shore says:

“…when there are any sort of public policy considerations or an attempt to summarize the current state of the science, then consensus becomes a useful concept. It’s as simple as that.”

It may be ‘as simple as that’ to the simple-minded. Or it may be a deceptive attempt to manufacture a false consensus that never really existed. In reality, the clique of alarmist scientists is relatively small.

The large preponderance of scientists agree with the OISM Petition, which states:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

That clear and unambiguous statement has been co-signed by more than 31,000 degreed professionals in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. Alarmist petitions have tried, but they do not come remotely close to those numbers. The fact is that most scientists know that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. Which counters the outright lie that “carbon” will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption. There is no empirical evidence whatever that supports that nonsense.

Joel Shore typically nitpicks the OISM Petition, but as is usually the case, Joel Shore is wrong. The alarmist “consensus”, of which Joel Shore is a part, is mendacious propaganda. And as stated above, it is provably false.

I am wondering why there are very little writing comparing current climate changing trend to what happened in Eocene Epoch (56 to 34 million years ago) where – preceded by Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum rapid global warming – the average temperature went as high as 12C above current average temperature in the Arctic, and at least 5C around the equator. Why the comparison important? Because as far as scientist can find, this is one of the greenest time on Earth, with Earth covered by forest from pole to pole. No evidence of decrease of life on lands but actually increase in abundance, of course some species become extinct but more species replace them.

I hate to say this – BUT “consensuses climate change” IS here in popular literature, in newspapers, in blogs, in popular culture, in movies, in television talk shows, it’s everywhere. We’re not going to change that – this IS the publics known fact as presented. I have long ago come to the conclusion the public is stupid – lacking any science knowledge – or even interested in science when it come to climate or global warming. Moreover, the general public would be totally intimidated by the vigorous “science” give and take experienced on these pages. That’s the level of understanding there in the public whether its the TV talking head, the newspaper journalists, or the normal course of information accessed by the general public on a daily basis in their popular culture.

We need to accept that – until we do we’re losing this little war. While we all know Hansen for what he is – to the general public Hansen IS NASA speaking. Case in point – we just had an election here in Alberta, Canada – Danielle Smith (Wildrose) who I voted FOR in their leader’s debate said she believed the debate on Global Warming was NOT settled and we need to keep an open mind on the science itself. She was literally booed off the stage. Then – believe me – she was attacked in every newspaper, every television station across Canada, called a Neanderthal, knuckle dragger, a dumb red neck, and every other vicious name you can imagine for TWO WEEKS on that ONE issue. Many of us fought back using science to prove Danielle’s point – guess who won this argument – hint – its wasn’t actual science.

97% of climate scientists agree with the concepts of AGW.
97% of those scientists are on some government funded payroll, somewhere.
97% of governments funding these studies can see some advantages in carbon tax/trading.
97% of politicians don’t care about CO2 or the climate, but do care about opinion polls, making deals to get legislation passed, money, re-election, and money (again).
97% of bureaucrats and elected politicians in the governments seeing the advantages choose to believe in Catastrophic AGW, and direct funding accordingly.
97% of that funding available in climate studies is dependent upon taking a stance aligned with the beliefs of CAGW.
97% of all other scientific articles are only passed on peer review if they contain the one vital paragraph acknowledging that the conclusions are subject to the expected and unexpected effects of CAGW.

Marc is a very good corporate guy. No doubt. Very Nick Naylor like. Your video reminds me of the scene from this movie:

The guy is a seasoned corporate guy matched up against a naive young woman. I don’t want what we’re supposed to take from that video.

However, No doubt there is politics on both sides of the debate. But many on left seem to view this as a situation where the politics is only coming from one side. Either way, the more politics gets involved, the more the general public losses. If the warming starts again more people will be interested in making money than anything.

The young lady in the video is typical of true believers. They do not believe in their own capacity to understand anything about science. Hence, they are completely vulnerable to anyone with scientific credentials. It is the control of these types of folks that was/is behind the attempts to control peer review and have scientific organizations take supporting positions. The propagandists realize that these types of individuals are theirs for the taking.

You will never change these folks. Instead, we should understand they have no self-confidence. They really should be made to look foolish rather than attempting to convince them with facts. In a sense, that was accomplished by Marc, but only to those of us who already know the facts. A better method would be ask them directly to state the facts themselves. Get others to realize these individuals don’t have a clue. We just need to keep piling on until they get tired of looking like morons and move on to another mission.

I hate to say this – BUT “consensuses climate change” IS here in popular literature, in newspapers, in blogs, in popular culture, in movies, in television talk shows, it’s everywhere. We’re not going to change that – this IS the public’s known fact as presented.

Very well said.

We like to think people are changing their minds.
I don’t think I’ve personally convinced anyone who did not already have some doubt in their mind.

Those with entrenched beliefs mostly seem to have not looked very hard, and are just going with this ‘consensus’ and the vague idea that ‘freely dumping our waste products in the atmosphere must be a bad thing’.

Those here who have been involved in the decision making processes of ‘big business’ and ‘big government’ will know from harsh experience that decisions get made because they suit someone’s agenda, NOT because it is the correct decision or the right thing to do. (If sometimes the correct decision does get made for the correct reason, please be aware that is an accident and/or a matter of co-incidence).

This battle is far from over, and it is probably unlikely logic will trump entrenched agendas. These people, with all their disparate (and all their mutually beneficial) plans will plough ahead and ‘manufacture’ the ‘support’ for their actions.

I don’t think Lovelock is such a schemer. this is a man who most likely cried tears of joy watching Avatar with its Strong Gaia Hypothesis ending. He is convinced that the earth and all its systems, including the atmosphere and biosphere, is an integral organismic whole in delicate balance. He believes that an infection in one part of the organism affects all other parts. That IS the Gaia Hypothesis.

You guys are letting your previous rancor about this man’s climate pronouncements get in the way and you are looking this gift horse in the mouth. If he has truly changed his mind, that’s a good thing which should not be disparaged and dismissed. If he is the extreme Machiavelle that some of you seem to think he is and this is just a diabolical ploy to sell more books (come on, let’s not appear to be nothing more than universal conspricay theorists here. You know how much credibility THEY have), so waht. Anyone who can waffle that extremely in a politically charged arena has forfeited any credibility and is easy to discredit if they flip flop again.

Be big about this and think how you might respond if it were to turn out (far fetched I know) that we are all wrong and Al Gore were to be correct. I don;t know about you, but I would have to say, “I was wrong, you were right” and hope everyone then acted decently rather than telling me that I am only saying that to get something out of it.

What do you want from this guy? He seems damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t here. I don’t particuarly like his kooky ideas – although I admit Gaia makes about as much sense to me as most organized relegions do, but let’s accept the man as innocent until proven guitly. What are you all going to say one fine day which we all long for when the entire cadre of CAGW alarmists are forced to give up the ghost? “Oh, they’re only saying it because they’re planning a resurgence adn are playing for time.” An admission of error is a bold, personally difficult thing to face. Why throw salt on this guy’s wounds.

All things Leftist and Progressive have done a great job of enlisting people like Anna Rose who are susceptible to emotional conspiracies. No sane person would want to destroy the earth, etc. and this plays in to the emotions of people who will willingly believe whatever the crisis du jour. And generally, those who are motivated by more worthwhile pursuits would never take a job like Anna’s, and the Leftists know this and exploit this for their ends.

Marc is exactly right, Anna Rose will at some point be forced to examine her intellectual conscience. The empirical truths will keep revealing the whole CAGW movement to be a falsehood. It’s only a matter of time before Anna will have to grow up.

But this is very instructive, because the lesson here is that Leftists are not merely guided by good intentions, but by control. And that’s why they prefer true believing sycophants like Anna to those who are willing to question.

“In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation.”

Good to see that RealClimate has always had a correct understanding of the consensus claim and its relation to science.

The RealClimate quote also identifies that, in a complex society in particular, a consensus is desirable when science has implications for public policy, and especially where decisions may have to be made on imperfect information.

Consensus also serves other important purposes. For example, in education it’s desirable to present a body of knowledge as the “accepted” position in order that students can gain a understanding of the current state of a discipline.

And of course this will make the AGW consensus “political” in the sense that it has implications for the interests of various actors within society, and this situation is likely to provoke controversy. But these outcomes are not valid reasons to reject the conclusions of science, nor a reason to discontinue studying climate.

I went to a lecture in 2006 given by Professor Lovelock and there was certainly plenty of consensus there. Questions were opened to the audience and those asked all implicity supported the Professor’s views. Each one was greeted by “That’s a very good question”. The exception was when it came to my turn when I critisised the models for their dubious dependence on feedbacks. He scowled (he really did) and snarled “The models are good! The models are good!” Evidently not that good. But well done him for admitting it!

One of the obvious issues, which has bothered me from the start, is the correlation between UN Science and Solution Work Groups. It doesn’t take a genius to immediately see the potential problem of IPCC Work Group 3 acting on the conclusions of its own Work Group 1.

Add to this the various UN Agendas for land management and sustainability and you have the perfect basis for a great tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

I typically ignore conspiracy theories, ghost, and alien stories. They’re a complete waste of time though occasionally amusing. Yet, so many actions appear to support the growing consensus that the UN has gone completely Psychotic. Is world land management even part of the UN Charter beyond a pass down of information?

Consensus over anything other than the handful of climate science absolutes is absurd. Every survey I’ve reviewed shows pitiful response statistics. So they end up claiming 70% support for a consensus when in fact its from various degrees of agreement equal to 70% from an 8% survey response. The claims of consensus are absurd.

Clearly NGOs and Environmentalist organizations are leveraging the notion of consensus to lobby their pet projects. But to discover the US Federal government incentives to sell this rush to judgement without proper due-dilegence is very disturbing.

AN ACT
PROHIBITING THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM ADOPTING OR IMPLEMENTING THE UNITED NATIONS RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

A. The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona.

Bold emphasis was mine. Willis did a great post on UN Agenda 21 a while back, I hope he posts an update.

In January, the Republican National Committee has already passed a resolution to EXPOSE UN AGENDA 21 AND REJECT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ICLEI. The Tea Party is now also engaged as are Democrats. (Note: someone recently hijacked the Democrat effort and launched a shortened version of the site name to point to Obama Sustainability programs os the spin is flowing).

Lovelock is entitled to his private opinions no matter how fascist or mendacious. He and Hansen and the rest of the Team have been shouting “fire” in the packed auditorium that is humanity for far too long to be forgiven. That Lovelock has produced valuable science in the past and that he looks like a kindly old gent and seems to speak about some pre-industrial idyll to which we must return has elevated him to mythic status in the eyes of many. There was another cuddly old uncle that sought to elevate “his” people to an idealised perfection. He achieved much in a short space of time and by his actions achieved mythic status. He was called Joe Stalin.

We must not let the alarmists role in this disaster be forgotten, the direct casualties of the policies of the Soviet Union were obvious and yet are still questioned by historians (10, 20 million deaths?). The subtle effects of food and fuel price hikes, energy market manipulation and fixing, fuel rationing and unpreparedness for natural cold events (Romania this winter) and diversion of public funds from rational allocation and effective poverty relieving solutions are piecemeal and ignored by the MSM.

A recent survey (see The Journal of The Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. January 2005 Vol 125 No 1) recored 51,000 excess winter deaths in Scotland alone – from 1989 to 2001- the report concluded that fuel poverty and poor housing for the poor were the chief contributors to the excess death rate. The SNP is committing the tax payers of Scotland to pay for the infrastructure to produce 100% of its energy from renewable means by 2020. I don’t expect it can all be Hydro. There is a cable across the English Channel to import nuclear electricity from France (if the English, Dutch and Germans don’t buy it first) so all is not lost.

Peter George perhaps, and many others, should look at the origins of the current public policy monster that is corrupting science, ethics and government. It never was based on science. The science was always driven by politics, by people like Lovelock and Hansen. Do not give them the benefit of the doubt – that Lovelock expresses doubt now when the politics and policy has already been “fixed” at the UN, the EU and most English speaking countries (thank God not the US or China) is irrelevant, meaningless and frankly too bloody late. It will take a generation or more to unwind the effects of AGW alarmism from public policy even if Western governments pulled all AGW related policy today. The precautionary principle is the last hand-hold of AGW, “we thought it was all true” “we were just following orders”. The facts have always been in the public realm, the MSM has chosen to ignore them. People have been deluded. James Lovelock.

It is ironic that during the period when Hansen insists we have witnessed “accelerating” global warming, the poor and elderly in Scotland were still dieing in their thousands due to the want of a few pounds-worth of heating. Mr. Lovelock and agencies of the UN publically and confidently predicted a billion excess deaths due to “global warming” whilst thousands were already dieing of cold and neglect. Who is counting the deaths of the poor, outside the West, from fuel poverty and food price inflation? The UN, whose policies promote this? Thousands have already died, Lovelocks’, opinions have promoted an agenda that will kill thousands more. Lovelock and all the other alarmists deserve no relief from the criticism of their opinions, omissions, mendacity and actions.

Recently Lovelock revised his view;
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. ..”
Lovelock apparently still speaks ambiguously. When he says, “We do not know….” So he is a skeptic, denier or whatever, it doesn’t make any difference.
So far no one has presented calculations upon which we can clearly say:
1. If the scientists have a consensus about global warming, in this case, the risk of the IPCC’s theory is 20%( XX%),
2. And if the IPCC’s theory is rejected, then the risk factor is 10%(YY%),
However, the solutions with less risk, seems to be preferred.
The scientists are very similar to basketball and football players. They may play in different clubs.
Lovelock says, “We do not know….” So the deficit problem is necessary and sufficient information.
Incomplete theories, premature conclusions, inexperience, with the impression that this is the final theory, unhealthy competition, sometimes feel irresponsibility, unavailability of sufficient information, being faced with large variables, need for teamwork with the necessary expertise, individualism, sometimes misuse of public position, eventually entering politics, all contribute to a scientist with misconceptions still make mistakes. I am sure just in one case; if any decent scientist discovers the mistake, he will deviate from it. Lovelock did it.If Lovelock discovers that the Chimera has dropped its previous comments, all who know him, again but this time more advanced, he will come back to the field.
………………………………………………….
PeterGeorge says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
______________________________
I agree with you. Please watch this video carefully to the end of it.
I wrote my own views before reading your comment. I added a part of your comment here that I enjoyed it. Our opinions are somewhat closer. We’re both concerned.
“But when, in an immature field of science, there is a plausible argument and some evidence for an effect that will destroy us and everything we care about if we don’t act immediately, what SHOULD we do if we don’t allow ourselves to use heuristic reasoning?”

The Free Encyclopedia defines consensus as follows.
“con•sen•sus (kn-snss)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.”

Science is about a constant seeking to gain a closer approximation to ‘truth’.

That search to get closer to ‘truth’ requires that any “opinion or position” must be constantly challenged. Therefore, consensus does not play any part in science. Indeed, adoption of consensus prevents the conduct of science because a consensus ossifies knowledge at its existing position in relation to ‘truth’.

Of course, an apparent consensus will exist concerning issues in a mature science because most practitioners will agree on the interpretation of the totality of existing evidence. But the conduct of science stops if a true consensus occurs.

Importantly, science does not advocate anything: it only seeks to get closer to a true understanding of reality. In other words, science creates new or different or improved knowledge, and it ONLY uses that knowledge for the conduct of more science.

Politics uses selected evidence (n.b. NOT the totality of evidence) to advocate or to justify policies and/or actions. And consensus is an important objective of politics because it encourages people to accept the desired actions and policies.

Being a scientist does not preclude a person from also being a politician (e.g. Benjamin Franklin). But a person cannot act simultaneously as a scientist and act as a politician: the two activities are mutually exclusive BECAUSE
(a) attainment of a consensus prevents the conduct of science
but
(b) attainment of a consensus is an objective of politics.

PeterGeorge says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
There is an important difference between science for its own sake, where I agree consensus is irrelevant, and science used to inform public policy. I also agree that with respect to climate science and a number of other fields public policy debate becomes politicized and highly unscientific – downright ugly as a matter of fact. It is easy to criticize all of this; I do it myself all the time. But when you get right down to it, what choice do we have?

Science for its own sake can afford to wait generations to get a “right” answer. In fact, science for its own sake NEVER has to decide on a right answer; science should always be prepared to discover that some widely believed theory, say Classical Dynamics, is incorrect in some important way.

But when, in an immature field of science, there is a plausible argument and some evidence for an effect that will destroy us and everything we care about if we don’t act immediately, what SHOULD we do if we don’t allow ourselves to use heuristic reasoning?

Forget the climate debate for a moment. If there were a 50% chance that the world would be destroyed if we didn’t act quickly on some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis, and if it would only cost a little to act and avoid the risk, would it be reasonable to reject action on the grounds that the science is un-settled? If 70-80% of scientists agreed that the hypothesis was probably correct, would it really be reasonable to argue that the “consensus argument” is not scientifically valid and so reject action?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We’re not talking a genuine consenus among scientist that, say, a nuke at the North Pole would wake up Godzilla.
Mann and company put forth a hypothesis years ago based on faulty data that they are still trying to hide. The computer models made from such things have proven to be WRONG.
And, REMEMBERING the climate debate, we’re not talking “it would only cost a little to act”. The cost is HUGE in money and freedom.
But I do agree, the actions of Mann and company is immature.

Lovelock wasn’t fooled, he knows exactly what the game is and uses it to his own advantage.

A vain man with an overblown sense of self importance, it was listening to him on a BBC News hardtalk program some years ago that converted me to a sceptic.
As he spoke of the equipment he designed to detect atmospheric CFCs and his later surprise at finding it more sensitive than first claimed, you could see a glint in his eyes that gave me the feeling he was bullshitting. I decided to read his books and, what with his contradictory public statements, realized for the first time that scientific opinion could be bought.

As with many prominent scientists, there will be a back story to everything that he says.

Kepler’s Laws (along with the theory of Copernicus, the observations of Galileo, and ultimately the work of Newton that derived those laws as a consequence of a sound theory of nature) overturned a primarily religious geocentric model that was not only the prevailing consensus, but was “obviously” correct and written down in the world’s most supposedly authoritative text, the Bible.

Come on now. Let’s not make unsupported claims like the IPCC. Stating the Bible teaches geocentricity is uninformed, and easy to dispute. Readers interested in the topic can perform a Google search and make up their own minds. I am not going to argue that topic here. My main point being this forum is not the appropriate place to be making those type of statements.

As I recall, approximately 6000 people associated with the IPCC represented the original consensus. That number decreased to 2500 today, but they’re still the consensus according to RealClimate…

Taking the IPCC/RC numbers at face value… The IPCC consensus view is now held by 41% (2500 of 6000) of people that the IPCC and RealClimate considers significant? Or has the population of qualified people changed greatly from the original 6000 quantity?

After thinking about the situation Morano found himself in, I have a good comeback.

He should have told her that according to her logic no person should ever discuss climate with her. Everyone should ignore everything she says. In fact, she would be a hypocrite to discuss climate with any individual.

Paul says:
April 30, 2012 at 9:43 am
A must watch.
==============================================
Forget it. Or just ask him to prove his 2 AGW assertions in the beginning. He will probably refer to the “consensus”.

I already know that one of the ‘97%’ studies has been totally trashed – the 74 out of 77, I believe.

But I’ve had 3-4 other such studies pointed out to me- all claiming ‘97%’- (for which I call BULLS**T). I don’t have the names of the studies / researchers before me, but does anyone know if similar debunking has occured with those?

I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no scientific consensus on the “man made global warming”. Actually I can prove that the opposite is true: the vast majority of the relevant scientists OPPOSE that idea. I can prove it simply by referring to a well known study on consensus by Doran and Zimmerman: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf .

No, it is not a joke. You only need to read the study carefully. Scientists were asked to answer 2 simply formulated questions and the authors say it it takes less than two minutes to answer them online:

“To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]): 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

The funny thing is that the percentage of the positive answers is completely irrelevant, if you look at these 2 crucial passages from the study:

“An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).”

“With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.”

What we see, is this: 69.3% of the Earth scientists refused to answer two simple and extremely important questions on the matter well known to them, what they could have easily done in less than two minutes.

The only reasonable explanation I can find is that their answers were NO to at least one of these questions but they did not want to face the consequences of telling the truth like getting fired, for example, or not getting promoted.

Adding those who did answer NO, we have a like 70% opposition to the notion of “man made global warming”.

1. Lovelock’s original statement was way over the top compared to the consensus projection of the IPCC. He never represented any sort of consensus of scientists who accepted AGW. The fact that he pulled back from it is proof of absolutely nothing. In fact he is working on a book on how humans can preserve the climate, so he has not totally renounced the idea of AGW.

2. Ball’s link, to Fred Singer’s false claims about Oreskes book, doesn’t prove anything about the validity of her historical account. His representations of what Oreskes wrote were totally false and distorted. Oreskes analysis of the literature was valid, and criticisms made of it by Benny Peiser and others have been torn apart.

3.Ball’s claim, that the idea that CO2 can cause climate change is totally hypothetical, is false. It is a sound physical theory based on observations of the IR spectrum of CO2 and other GHG’s first made in 1859. It is accepted physics and has been since the theory was first proposed in 1859 by John Tyndall. The great Nobel Laureate, Svante Arrhenius was the first person to estimate the Climate Sensitivity associated with doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

consensus says to me that they make a theory, then make the evidence “fit” the theory. Last time I checked on what science was suppose to do thats a very unscientific method.

Where are the, “ok new theory, lets pick this sucker apart and see whether it stands or not” crowd?
I see the, “ok new theory to control the ignorant masses, lets make all the evidence fit, then we can make the pesants do what we want while we live in massive mansions and they are all left to be nomadic gatherers, cause we won’t let them hunt” crowd.

If its a choice between stuck under a fascist/dictator/other control system and freedom, call me a denier/hick and paint me some other colour besides red or green. At least I will never be a brain dead sheeple.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about; do you know the difference between frequency and power? All cell phone frequencies are good for cooking brains. The only thing a cell phone lacks for warming up your food is transmitted power.

Billy,

When Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize, the one thing that the Nobel committee mentioned specifically in the citation was his explanation of the photoelectric effect. He explained this by proposing that light (at least in its interactions with the elementary constituents of matter) behaves as if it is quantized into particles called photons. The energy of these photons is proportional to the frequency. What is important for causing the sort of effects that lead to mutations in cells (and cause cancer) is the energy of these photons…and the energy of photons at microwave & radio frequencies are several orders of magnitude too small to cause such effects.

So, yes, your cell phone can generate heat and cook things (although as you note the amount of power is very small). However, on a microscopic scale the individual photons do not have nearly enough energy to cause mutations. [Photons of ultraviolet radiation do, which is why such radiation can cause cancer.]

For example, calling someone a skeptic is considered derogatory, yet it’s a necessity for a scientist. When warming became climate change skeptics became deniers, a nasty ambiguous word.

I would disagree that “skeptic” is considered derogatory. As near as I can tell, “AGW skeptics” adopted the term to describe themselves. And, some of us think that they term has actually been misappropriated because most “AGW skeptics” do not practice real skepticism or anything remotely close to it. Rather, they refuse to believe things they don’t want to believe despite strong evidence and are willing to believe just about anything that agrees with what they want to believe. That is the reason why the “D” word that you so object to came into use. Another term that has sometimes been used is “contrarians”, which is perhaps less loaded than the “D” word and is more accurate than “skeptics”.

In the video with Ms. Rose, at 0:58 she states that she will only debate a climate scientist. Since Mr. Morano isn’t a scientist, she wasn’t willing to debate. But where are her climate science credentials? A quick search on Wikipedia (not known for its skeptical views on climate), none of her studies were in the sciences.. She is listed a having a Law Degree (1st in her class, good for her. Her debating skills should be up to par with Marc, so why no debate?) and an art degree. But nothing involving science or climate. So to use her own rules, she could never debate Dr. Spencer since she isn’t a climate scientist. Hypocrisy abounds on the AGW side.. She knew she’d lose in the AGW debate with Marc (IMHO). She makes general accusations about lies, but can’t list one..

Greg House says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm
I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no scientific consensus on the “man made global warming”. Actually I can prove that the opposite is true: the vast majority of the relevant scientists OPPOSE that idea. ….Adding those who did answer NO, we have a like 70% opposition to the notion of “man made global warming”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Quick! Somebody tell that “bossy blond”!

Forget the climate debate for a moment. If there were a 50% chance that the world would be destroyed if we didn’t act quickly on some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis, and if it would only cost a little to act and avoid the risk, would it be reasonable to reject action on the grounds that the science is un-settled? If 70-80% of scientists agreed that the hypothesis was probably correct, would it really be reasonable to argue that the “consensus argument” is not scientifically valid and so reject action?

This postulation, PeterGeorge, would not be advanced if the Climate debate was on the up-and-up. Once you ‘forget’ the climate debate, there is no longer “some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis” lurking around to cause policy makers to “act now, because if we are wrong it’s better than not acting if we are right”. This is plain good old disaster scenario reasoning: something MIGHT happen….it sounds plausibly possible, so we best fix it”. That’s sort of like preventative maintenance run amok. Changing the oil in a new car every day because a bit of diamond dust MIGHT get through the air filter and score a bearing. So, quite frankly, you should remember the climate debate, and the fact that this incredible appeal to consensus is an effort to stifle debate and silence dissent. As Michael Crichton once said, it’s the “first refuge of scoundrels”, and your damp straw argument might spontaneously combust. The argument has been advanced time and time again, and really it is not an argument at all, because it attempts to replace something shaky (at best) with something even shakier…with only a 50% chance!

“Information obtained by science may be used in many ways for a variety of purposes (as any engineer can explain to you). But there is no such thing as “[a distinct for of] science used to inform public policy”.

All things Leftist and Progressive have done a great job of enlisting people like Anna Rose who are susceptible to emotional conspiracies. No sane person would want to destroy the earth, etc. and this plays in to the emotions of people who will willingly believe whatever the crisis du jour. And generally, those who are motivated by more worthwhile pursuits would never take a job like Anna’s, and the Leftists know this and exploit this for their ends.

Marc is exactly right, Anna Rose will at some point be forced to examine her intellectual conscience. The empirical truths will keep revealing the whole CAGW movement to be a falsehood. It’s only a matter of time before Anna will have to grow up.

But this is very instructive, because the lesson here is that Leftists are not merely guided by good intentions, but by control. And that’s why they prefer true believing sycophants like Anna to those who are willing to question.

Vote wisely.”

I know plenty of republicans that were wetting in their pants anytime the terror alert was “raised”. Many have fallen for that manipulative garbage.

Richardscourtney: “Therefore, consensus does not play any part in science.”

As I said, in a complex society consensus is desirable and often necessary when science has implications for public policy.

An example is vaccination, where it is important that policy makers and practitioners can operate from an agreed position on the science and technology that support public vaccination programmes.

Equally as important is that people involved in public health programmes of this sort are on the same page in regard to the science, in order not to cause confusion among the public, which can undermine such important measures.

So the adoption of a consensus can play an important part in the interface between science and the wider society.

Each of your posts on this thread demonstrates your lack of ability at reading comprehension. I bother to address one of them (for illustration) because it is directly addressed at me.

At April 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm you quote my having said;

“Information obtained by science may be used in many ways for a variety of purposes (as any engineer can explain to you). But there is no such thing as “science used to inform public policy”.”

And you respond by saying;

“What a bizarre statement! You don’t think that public policy needs to use science in order to make wise decisions?!? That would certainly explain a lot!”

Let me try to spell it out for you in terms so simple that even you may be capable of understanding it.
1.
Every rational person thinks public policy needs to use the best available information in attempt to make wise decisions.
2.
Science exists to obtain the nearest possible understanding of truth and,
3.
therefore, science provides information.
4.
Point 1 indicates that wise formulation of public policy needs to use information from many sources including information provided by science.
5.
Forcing science to support public policy distorts science (see my above post at April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm for explanation of how and why).
6.
However, science can be directed (e.g. by funding) to seek particular objectives.
Indeed, almost all science is conducted outside of the academic sphere (mostly by industry) and is directed at specific goals (e.g. to discover sufficient knowledge of certain materials that they can be constructed with defined properties) so they can be put to a specific application (e.g. manufacture of Dorset Armour, or plastic bottles, or microchips, or etc.).
7.
But the science which is funded to find some specific knowledge is conducted purely to obtain the true information (i.e. the knowledge).
8.
Technologists, engineers, politicians and/or others may choose to use knowledge (obtained e.g. by science) for their own purposes,
9.
But science which attempts to obtain specific information is distorted when the scientists allow their work to be affected by the motive for funding their work.
10.
Industry has learned Point 9 the hard way (bridges fall down when scientists think they are engineers)
11.
so industry makes clear distinctions between science (i.e. research: R), application of science (i.e. development: D), and proof of the application (i.e. demonstration) and industry conducts R,D&D.
12.
Politicians have also learned Point 9, so they deliberately corrupt science to obtain distorted information (that ‘looks like’ scientific information) which they can – and do – use to further their objectives.
13.
Some people with scientific qualifications are willing servants of the politicians who practice deliberate corruption of science (these people with scientific qualifications are pseudoscientists).

“I have a first class honours degree in Arts (Asian Studies) and Law. I’ve spent a bunch of time studying and working in the United States, including trudging through snow for the Obama campaign in the New Hampshire Primary. ”

I will say one thing in defense of Ms. Rose. It appears she had no idea who she would be meeting, but Marc probably new. So he could do some opposition research prior to the meeting and have some specifics on Ms. Rose, where all she could drum up is ‘He Lies”. Her education is in the law, not science, so she reverted to what she new best. Just keep quite on specifics and only make generalizations. It seems like her entire courtroom tactic would be “Your Honor, he is guilty of lying and he has to prove that he is not, I rest my case”.

If she were actually confident in her views, she should be able to hold her own with Marc. She is not just a random person on the street, she puts herself out there representing the AGW view, she should be able to defend herself in a situation like this.

Your post addressed to me at May 1, 2012 at 12:21 am demonstrates that you still fail to understand anything about this subject.

It says;
“As I said, in a complex society consensus is desirable and often necessary when science has implications for public policy.
An example is vaccination, where it is important that policy makers and practitioners can operate from an agreed position on the science and technology that support public vaccination programmes.” etc.

NO! The needed consensus is a political decision which needs to be made by those setting the policy because if they cannot agree what should be done then they cannot do it. And they draw information from many sources – including science – to aid them in forming their consensus.

Consensus damages science for the reasons I explained to you in this thread at April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm. Simply, consensus is a denial of science and it is NOT a part of science.

I suggest that you read my post at May 1, 2012 at 1:23 am. It spells out the matter for joeldshore but may help your lack of understanding, too.

“And that’s why they prefer true believing sycophants like Anna to those who are willing to question.”

The first statement is unlikely to ever happen because of the truth of the second. This is not a scientific debate, it is a theological one. The response of true believers to anything contradicting their faith is not thoughtfulness but a determnation to clamp down on and eliminate any heretical notions which contradict dogma.

Case in point. Antinuclearism is dogma among climate change advocates, notably organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF. James Lovelock indicated his support for nuclear power because of the perceived need to reduce CO2 emissions. The result of such heresy was a torrent of abuse from the Greens, virtually none of which were willing to consider the supposed merits of his argument.

In this fundamentally religious debate it’s necessary to consider the central belief of the opposition. For the Greens who are the public advocates of climate change, all industrial development and economic growth is fundamentally evil. They want human civilization to be less significant than it is now. They want diminished human capacity, not greater. This is nihilism, and you can’t debate it. You can only oppose it.

And make no mistake. Throughout history, religious “debates” are only resolved in one fashion. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, there’s no neutrality between the fireman and the fire.

Why we are not able to reach consensus on climate change?
This is the end of our ignorance.
The human stupidity is taking place.
Most human neglect is going on.
We’re passing the renaissance of climate change.

Lovelock aftermathو a serious incident:
The only important prerequisite for being a scientist in the field of climate change:
* I swear to be truthful.
Six important condition for being a scientist in the field of climate change:
1. I confess that I am a complete idiot
2. I confess that I am a complete ignorant
3. I admit I know nothing
4. I ​​admit my remarks is always imperfect
5. I confess that I never want to mislead or deceive anyone, I’m not going to do
6. I admit I’m not tied to any financial firm

Richardscourtney: “The needed consensus is a political decision which needs to be made by those setting the policy because if they cannot agree what should be done then they cannot do it. And they draw information from many sources – including science – to aid them in forming their consensus.”

I think we’re in splitting hairs territory here. Of course public policy draws from other sources of information. And in the broadest sense the consensus decision is a political one. But that consensus also requires an agreed position by those presenting the information that is being used to inform the public policy.

Even if public policy makers were to require a dissenting view (or views) on a scientific matter, those views would themselves require some sort of consensus, otherwise you end up with a cacophony of information without the ability to distinguish the good from the bad.

So there has to be some filtering by scientists on the worth of the information to be presented about a scientific matter, since they and not politicians are the ones who are qualified to make those judgements.

In response to my repeatedly taking the trouble to explain the matter to you, at May 1, 2012 at 11:45 am you say;

“I think we’re in splitting hairs territory here. Of course public policy draws from other sources of information. And in the broadest sense the consensus decision is a political one. But that consensus also requires an agreed position by those presenting the information that is being used to inform the public policy.”

Bollocks!
The best information is ALL the information including all disagreements and the reasons for those disagreements.
An “agreed position by those presenting the information” is PARTIAL information (I wonder if you ever heard about WMD in Iraq).

I have tried to explain the matter to you (repeatedly) but I have clearly failed. It seems you are wilfully pretending you cannot understand as an attempt to justify pseudoscience.

“I have always been amazed at how “consensus” has be so brazenly used as argument, when it has historically (and consistently) lost out to the greatest minds of science, and technological advancement.”
________________________
“Consensus” is not a bad idea:
2 by 2 equals 4, is a consensus,
We usually sleep at nights, is a consensus,
Fascism is bad, is a consensus,
Contributing to global warming is not a good idea, is a consensus,
and many more…

“I have always been amazed at how “consensus” has be so brazenly used as argument, when it has historically (and consistently) lost out to the greatest minds of science, and technological advancement.”
________________________
“Consensus” is not a bad idea:
2 by 2 equals 4, is a consensus,
We usually sleep at nights, is a consensus,
Fascism is bad, is a consensus,
Contributing to global warming is not a good idea, is a consensus,
and many more…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 X 2 = 4 is true whether or not there is a consensus. To say or imply it is true just because there is a consensus is the fallacy.

Richardscourtney: “Bollocks! The best information is ALL the information including all disagreements and the reasons for those disagreements.”

Except that there’s lot of stuff out there that some people consider to be information but others consider to be bollocks.

In effect, you are expecting public policy makers and decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts. Otherwise, how are the non-experts to sort the wheat from the chaff?

The experts should by all means make clear their uncertainties and areas where they lack knowledge. But experts are consulted because they can provide a view on a subject that is more informed than the non-expert view.

That in turn requires some degree of consensus over what is known, what is not so well known, and the uncertainties.

I am answering your post at May 2, 2012 at 12:05 am solely so others can see I have not avoided it.

This will be my final response to your nonsense so you have the opportunity of the final word.

Your post asserts to me;
“Except that there’s lot of stuff out there that some people consider to be information but others consider to be bollocks.
In effect, you are expecting public policy makers and decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts. Otherwise, how are the non-experts to sort the wheat from the chaff?”

I answer as follows.

I assume you think some of what you write on WUWT is “information”. Others can assess what you write for themselves, and they do not need to be “experts” for some of them to conclude it is “bollocks”.

You are claiming that those who share your views should be given the power to prevent other views being considered by policy-makers. There is a word for that; Lysenkoism.

And, NO, I am NOT wanting “decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts”.

I am expecting decision-makers to evaluate information of all kinds (e.g. scientific, economic, logistic, sociological, etc.) and then to decide on the basis of their evaluation.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ELECTED TO DO.

You are claiming a self-determined elite should be given the power to allow only their view to be considered by the decision-makers. There is a word for that, too; fascism.

I believe in democracy.
You – in common with several others who contribute to WUWT threads – are arguing for facism.

Importantly, you are claiming that the practice of science should be destroyed as a method to implement your facism.

What you are claiming is opposed by everybody (including me) who supports the benefits obtained at the enlightenment. We are united in that opposition although we include people of every political, religious and philosophical view.

If what we are describing is fascism, it is “fascism” that has been successfully implemented in the U.S. and I presume in nearly all civilized Western societies. The U.S. government set up the National Academy of Science precisely to provide the sort of scientific information to policymakers that we are discussing. I would assume that the Royal Society in Britain probably has this as at least one component of its mission too.

And, I doubt that you would oppose it in all contexts. Imagine the following: Let’s say that your coal industry (and the power industry in general) were being threatened by politicians who were trotting out their pet scientists to support the position that the EMF from power lines was causing all sorts of ills and that expensive measures had to be taken to protect the public from this, while scientific societies like the Royal Society and the NAS were weighing in with consensus reports that said that such EMF causes no detectable harm. I doubt in this case you would be arguing that consensus science is fascism and we ought to be supporting those politicians who find scientific support from their few “pet scientists” who believe contrary to the consensus.

Look what has really happened is this: You are the losers of a scientific argument so you want the politicians to step in and adjudicate the science more to your liking. That has nothing to do with enlightenment…It has to do with taking us back to the Dark Ages.

richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm
You are absolutely correct – Science and Politics cannot be undertaken at the same time. M. Mann is clearly guilty of trying to do both, as are others in Climate Science. If as a scientist you become so convinced by some line of scientific reasoning that public policy must change, you have two choices:
1. Trust elected politicians to evaluate your evidence and so create the policy you so crave.
2. Cease being a scientist and run for political office.
The general scientific illiteracy of those involved in public science is worrying and as I have said before, the contamination of science by self- and political-interest is potentially disastrous.

“Look what has really happened is this: You are the losers of a scientific argument so you want the politicians to step in and adjudicate the science…”

As usual, if it were not for psychological projection, Joel Shore would not have anything to say.

Shore is the one who wants government to step in and decide what is, and what is not, science.

The deluded believers in the putative “carbon” threat are the ones who are taking us back to the Dark Ages. CO2 causes no detectable or measurable harm. Therefore, CO2 is HARMLESS. QED

As usual, Shore wants the GOVERNMENT to step in and declare CO2 a ‘threat’, based on NO empirical evidence whatsoever.

The RS and the NAS have morphed into entirely political, anti-science organizations. They now promote 100% pseudo-science. It is the ethical, honest outlets like WUWT, which counter their mendacious propaganda. One day the scales may fall from Joel Shore’s eyes. But don’t count on it.

Gunga Din says:
May 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm
1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+ 1-1+1-1=1
3-1-2=1
3-2=1+1
1=2
You know that this is crazy.
So because of that, we must insist 2 * 2 = 4 (just an example).
Because this equation is a proof that we have consensus on it. We will refer to this argument, because we’re trying to prove an issue. Strong indications are necessary to shorten the debate. The sun is the sun, this is a consensus. For the sun, here we do not need to provide any reason.
Why we are not able to reach consensus on climate change or at least on some parts of the issue?
My interpretation is that there are two opponents in the competition with the same power.

I considered ignoring your untrue and illogical rant at May 2, 2012 at 6:22 am because it is so self-defeating that a rebuttal is not required.

However, your rant is personally addressed to me and, therefore, my failure to reply could imply to some others that I had run away. Hence, I post this brief note.

I cannot speak for the US NAS, but the UK RS was NOT established to speak to governments, politicians, or anybody else. The fact that its administration has been usurped of recent does not change that. And the Fellows and Associates of the RS have no say of any kind in the public pronouncements of the RS which derive from its Administration. Furthermore, only members of that Administration can change their membership.

Lindzen’s paper is an interesting – and a shocking – read. Its synopsis says;
“For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. Such factors as the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs, the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead, and the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations are considered. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.”

And you continue by saying;
“And, I doubt that you would oppose it in all contexts. Imagine the following: Let’s say that your coal industry (and the power industry in general) were being threatened by politicians …”

Say what!?
The coal industry of which I was a part was closed by politicians for purely political reasons, and that closure was completed in 1995.

Furthermore, spurious pseudoscientific arguments were among the excuses for that deliberately imposed economic loss to the UK.

Throughout that process – and to this day – I have ALWAYS defended science against its replacement by pseudoscience.

Come back to me when you know what you are talking about.

And I quote your final paragraph in full because every statement in it is a lie. It says;
“Look what has really happened is this: You are the losers of a scientific argument so you want the politicians to step in and adjudicate the science more to your liking. That has nothing to do with enlightenment…It has to do with taking us back to the Dark Ages.”

Here on planet Earth the skeptics of AGW have won the scientific case outright. The skeptics have demonstrated that everything – yes, everything – predicted by AGW-advocate is wrong.

The AGW-advocates know they have lost the scientific argument so they attempt to prevent anything other than their wrong assertions being presented to decision-makers; n.b. the skeptics are NOT the ones calling for other views to be ignored, you are. Such prevention of consideration of every scientific view but one is Lysenkoism.

And opposing Lysenkoism has EVERYTHING to do with defending the benefits of the Enlightenment. Failure to defend against it would “take us back to the Dark Ages”.

Richardscourtney: “You are claiming that those who share your views should be given the power to prevent other views being considered by policy-makers.”

My position is that the best current information on any matter should be presented to decision-makers. The “best current information” may or may not be in agreement with my personal views.

The fact is that not all views are equal, and there needs to be some way of sifting the various views that will always be present among groups of people. In some circumstances, such as this blog for instance, the principal decides which views are acceptable.

But when it comes to public policy in a democratic society, the model is shared decision-making, and that inevitably requires some form of consensus, wherever it occurs in the decision-making process. And of course, in a democratic society decision-makers are free to seek the views of their own preferred experts, so we’re not talking about a closed shop here.

The groupthink of the CAGW ‘consensus’ lost its sole advantage in the climate science discourse when it lost its initial capability to block openness in the discourse. Once sufficient openness stated to occur then groupthinkers of the CAGW ‘consensus’ lost their credibility in the discourse.

But the groupthinkers of the CAGW ‘consensus’ cannot understand why they fail even though they understand that they are failing. They may never understand. Mann certainly does not yet understand.

The society repeatedly has listened to bunch of scientific or pseudo scientific reasons of the scientists. To reach to a primary consensus, how long you need the time.
This is just unbelievable that scientists so far, even in the few cases or trivial, have not reached consensus. For example:
1. The planet’s average temperature has increased. Yes or no?
2. Over millions of years ago, the rate of increase / decrease / change the amount of carbon dioxide was 0.0001 ppm per year (if there are complaints about the quantity subject to verification without mentioning the amount will suffice). Yes or No?
3. Fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels within about 200 (or whatever) years ago does not follow the rules of millions of years ago, so that the current growth rate of carbon dioxide is 2 ppm per year. Yes or No?
4. The allowable acceptable amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is: 250 350 450 550 1050 5000 Unlimited ppm. Write it.
5. At what point in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet is in alarm condition. And since then, man is unable to perform any action on the planet and climate change is irreversible. Just write your number.
6. Sun and solar system developments has a direct effect on climate change. Yes or No?
7. Average planetary temperature changes is an important index. This means that we’re still having heat or cold waves in the future, they occur locally. Yes or No?
Here we did not arrive at all the different theories and principles. We abstained from entering into controversial cases.
We tried to identify some common points.
These principles are as common in the agreement. Like 2 * 2 = 4
These common areas may be subject to change.
Materials are those that are written by consensus.

And, the reason there is no consensus on climate change is because people disagree (Simples!)

Richard
===============================
Thank you, Richard. I was going to look up a similar “proof” I saw once that 1=2 where the error was in one of the steps camouflaged dividing by 0. It looked logical until you spotted it and remembered that the laws of math don’t allow dividing by 0. (Kind of like spotting that tree rings aren’t thermometers.)
The people getting others to shout “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” are doing so for political reasons. (And some of those shouting it need to comb their hair.8-)

richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
_________________________
You got it.
This calculation was a trick. I certainly agree with your statements. In this case we have a consensus. I was trying to say “consensus” is not bad.
My intention in this instance refers to the fact that our scientists, despite having numerous scientific common, but they are incapable of expressing it.
I immediately gave you a favorable response. So anachronistic debate did not continue.
We got it quickly. Why?
Here we were both true.
But I believe that is not always that way.

Your post at May 2, 2012 at 8:06 am says;
“1=1
_______________________________________
I did exactly what some of the scientists are doing. They are knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time. I was not going to waste your time. Sorry about it. But I thought this was a useful reference. You forgot the main issue. So while I was successful in misleading you, you were looking to prove a meaningless question.
Extensive discussions is happening in relation to climate change. Here are biased individuals abound.

Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:49 pm
&
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
______________________________
This is a very obvious example of the topics we discussed:
1 = 1
You be the judge. Who is telling the truth:

richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm
“NO! If they “reached consensus” then they would not be scientists.”
______________________________________________________
I’m not in a position to teach you. On the contrary, I learn something from you.
I just read your content. I do not miss this opportunity. But before that:
Do you insist you should not reach to an agreement with anyone ? This is a mere prejudice.
Why?

=============================
OKaaaaay………. So, is the “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” argument in climate science political or not? Do you think there even IS a consensus? If you think there is, what is it?

After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;

“I did exactly what some of the scientists are doing. They are knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time. I was not going to waste your time. Sorry about it. But I thought this was a useful reference. You forgot the main issue. So while I was successful in misleading you, you were looking to prove a meaningless question.”

I continued by writing answers to you because I thought there was a possibility has you were acting genuinely.

Your post at May 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm (which claims to be in response to my post at May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm) has convinced me that ALL your posts are “knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time” by posing questions that are “meaningless” because you have been given answers to them .

Therefore, I shall not reply to any more of your questions whether or not they are addressed to me.

Richard, I strongly agree with your comments about consensus, including your valid point regarding the ability of non experts to check for themselves.

For those who did not understand Richard’s message, here are two little illustrations, or analogies.

In simple physics, or mechanics, conservation of energy can indicate whether a particular proposed scheme is possible, with no need to know any of the detail between beginning and end.

The German Enigma encoding machine produced such well scrambled code that it was regarded by many as impossible to crack. But a small number of relevant observations helped greatly with the process of breaking the codes. One of these was that, because of the structure of the code wheels and other connections of the machine, no character entered into it would ever be encoded as itself. That fact enabled the Bletchley Park people and others to eliminate any trial output which interpreted any input character in a scrambled text string as itself.

Just one fault, clearly demonstrated, in logic of or prediction by a theory is sufficient for any non expert to confidently and correctly dismiss that theory. Simple as that.

The Piltdown Man hoax was exposed within a few months by an expert who immediately observed and clearly stated how the fraudster had constructed his “find”, but the hoax persisted for 50 years, resulting in hundreds of papers written with it as a basis and gross misdirection of the science of archaeology.

In “climate science” many clear demonstrations of fault have been demonstrated to policy makers and the public.

Those politicians and other policy makers who continue to claim that they have “climate science” to support their actions have only the false excuse of consensus to use, and they push it hard. No surprise there.

richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm
BIGTIX:
“After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;”
________________________________________

I’m not sorry I wrote the truth:
1=1
1+1-1=1
……….
1=2
I wrote in here:
“You know that this is crazy.”
…….
The interesting thing was that I told you about the wrong issue. You probably get the answers you seek. These calculations gave the best place to argue. And that was the point.
I’m already familiar with your tastes.
I’m not surprised because you’ve said that you can not understand anyone. (No consensus).
You’ll be the loser.
Take your time. I am always at your disposal.
Best wishes

Laurie Williams says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:24 am
“Richard, I strongly agree with your comments about consensus, including your valid point regarding the ability of non experts to check for themselves.”
_______________________________________________________
Experience has shown that before entering into any discussion, you should carefully check all aspects of work.
Science alone is not enough. This issue has been fixed. Philosophy, logic, science, if not together, you will not succeed. For example:
A- I do not know you…
1. So you’re not an expert!
2. You’re the expert!
Which is correct?
How do you rate the expertise of people with a few words?
B- I defend the “consensus” (generally).
The result:
1. I am a politician.
2. I’m not a politician.
3. I’m neither. I am the people.
Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?
Please do not angry with me! Like Richard!
* I swear to be truthful.
1. I confess that I am a complete idiot.
2. I confess that I am a complete ignorant.
3. I admit I know nothing.
4. I ​​admit my remarks is always imperfect.
5. I confess that I never want to mislead or deceive anyone, I’m not going to do.
6. I admit I’m not tied to any financial firm.
I started discussion with Richard with 1=1, which can be 1=2! :
Now you tell me about the following links which one is true:

….. You forgot the main issue……
_______________________________________
For Gunga Din, there is no place better than the heaven. I’m familiar with the name Gunga Din.

Your question was great. I’m glad we got to the point. I try to make it short.
Look, abortion is a matter of religious and political. It goes back to the Medical Sciences. But its size is much broader than a surgery room.
Likewise is the situation in other cases.
Nuclear energy
Nitro glycerin
Oil
Gas
Weapons
Earth and Space
Etc.
I hope there is no question about the definition of “government” for you. You may find more about the history of “Government” and the definitions in Wikipedia.
Surely the best trustee of such affairs is of state.
State supervision over the affairs of a country, is my ultimate goal. Without it, at least I’m not able to live in a mad mad mad world.
Therefore, in general, the results of scientific research are directed to the community, through the state. Surely the government’s role is legislative.
We accept the role of government is the first consensus statement.
The scientists have divided and conflicting theories. They should work forever.
Therefore,
The second is our consensus that scientists do not have the same opinions.
Comes immediately:
The third consensus is that scientists are incapable of choosing their own subscriptions.
Therefore in terms the responsibility of identify and extract common opinion of all scientists, it is legally assigned to others. The government.
Finally,
If your question is that the Climate Science of political.
My answer is yes.
This does not conflict with scientific research. If the issue of climate change is discussed in a humorous newspaper, it also is a political newspaper. Lovelock is a scientist. He has the right to publish his views. So Lovelock is not the problem. Lovelock comments could create quakes of tremendous economic, social and political dimensions. Just like abortion. Heated debates in medical science and genetics and simulation are underway.
Like the issue of climate change.
The fate of the people, is related to this issue.

All Lindzen does is provide excuses for those who would prefer to have public policy informed by their own ideological prejudices rather than by science.

Say what!?
The coal industry of which I was a part was closed by politicians for purely political reasons, and that closure was completed in 1995.

Well, I will defer to the expertise of a member of the British coal industry on the subject. However, as of 2009, coal still provided about 28% of Britain’s electricity generation. Whether or not that coal is mainly (or all) imported I do not know, but I imagine that regardless there are people who don’t want to see that number dwindle further.

The AGW-advocates know they have lost the scientific argument so they attempt to prevent anything other than their wrong assertions being presented to decision-makers; n.b. the skeptics are NOT the ones calling for other views to be ignored, you are. Such prevention of consideration of every scientific view but one is Lysenkoism.

No, because for AGW “skeptics”, doubt is your product. Of course, you are happy to have all sorts of views present just as long as they lead to the incorrect conclusion that the science is so unsettled that it does not support taking any actions in regard to greenhouse gases.

And, “evolution skeptics” can similarly point out that they are not the ones calling for views to be ignored. After all, they are not arguing for evolution not to be taught in our science classrooms. They just want other views, like intelligent design, to be taught alongside evolution! It is the evolutionists who want to keep certain views out of the science classroom. So, I guess by your logic, evolutionists must also be practicing modern day Lysenkoism.

Laurie Williams says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:24 am
__________________________________
No consensus,
Which one is true?
Which one is the real 1=1?
So what?
“The scientists do not have the same opinions.” You like this. No consensus.
My purpose of discussing with Richard the lion heart:
“Find the fallacy”

BIGTIX says:
May 3, 2012 at 11:29 am
………………………………………………………….
I’m guessing that English is your second language?
My question was, “So, is the “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” argument in climate science political or not?”.
Your answer was a very long “yes”.

After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;
___________________________________
Drawback is that you think I favor this nonsense 1 = 2. And you found that bug!
This is crazy and I told you about the trick in the very beginning.
What a mess.

We are a six-person team, we are from different nationalities. I am Davide from Italy with you.(read my name as you see please) . The other friends are from Canada, Germany, UK , Iran and US.
Our youngest 41 years old.

Your post at May 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm is yet another demonstration of your reading difficulties, and it adds proof of your nature. It purports to be answering my post at May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am. But it is so ridiculous that I merely point out your errors and ask others compare my post and your response for themselves.

You had asserted that the RS was formed to inform others. I pointed out that your assertion is plain wrong, but the RS Administration has been usurped so the Members of that Administration make proclamations which Fellows and Associations of the RS cannot affect.

I provided a link to Lindzen’s paper which names individuals and details their actions to usurp several science Academies including the RS. I repeat that link to where the full paper can be downloaded; i.e.http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762
This peer reviewed and fully-referenced paper has not been challenged although named persons could have (would have?) sued for libel if the paper were wrong.

Your reply is to cite a present-day policy statement from the Administration of the RS and to write;
“All Lindzen does is provide excuses for those who would prefer to have public policy informed by their own ideological prejudices rather than by science.”

That is so wrong it is risible. Be honest, you didn’t read it, did you?

Furthermore, I object to your offensive and personal twaddle, I especially object to your calling me a liar.
My employment as part of the UK coal industry did end when that industry was closed in 1995 (how could an industry which does not exist employ me?). Of course, and as you say, the UK electricity industry continues to use (now imported) coal, but I have never worked for it.

I considered objecting to your moderation of my post at May 4, 2012 at 3:16 am. However, on reflection I think the deletion implies I used stronger words than I did so I am grateful for it.

Joel Shore had written;
“And, I doubt that you would oppose it [i.e. pseudoscience] in all contexts. Imagine the following: Let’s say that your coal industry (and the power industry in general) were being threatened by politicians who were trotting out their pet scientists to support …”

That was extremely offensive because I did not need to imagine it: as I explained in my reply at May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am,
(a) it was a description of what had happened to trash my career nearly two decades ago (I was the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal – a.k.a. the National Coal Board – based at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment which closed when politicians closed British Coal)
and
(b) it is a matter of record that (as, during and after those events) I DID “oppose” the use of pseudoscience as an excuse for what the politicians did.

Clearly, Shore may have been ignorant of those facts and, therefore, he may not have been aware of the offensive nature of what he had written.

But Skore’s reply to my pointing out (a) and (b), did not apologise. Instead, (at May 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm) Shore made a ridiculous assertion which suggested (a) was not true.

My response (which you snipped) was an attempt to demonstrate my disgust at Shore’s behaviour.

Richard

PS Following the cessation of my coal industry career in 1995, I have obtained income from the consultancy business I established (which mostly provides information for politicians and which I am in process of closing) and I have devoted most of my time to activities for the Methodist Church (I am an Accredited Preacher).

I provided a link to Lindzen’s paper which names individuals and details their actions to usurp several science Academies including the RS. I repeat that link to where the full paper can be downloaded; i.e.http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762
This peer reviewed and fully-referenced paper has not been challenged although named persons could have (would have?) sued for libel if the paper were wrong.

(1) It was not peer-reviewed as near as I can tell. The link is to a preprint webserver that anybody can post to. I find no evidence on google scholar that it actually appeared in a peer-reviewed journal either.

(2) “Nobody has sued” is hardly a high standard for accuracy of a paper.

Furthermore, I object to your offensive and personal twaddle, I especially object to your calling me a liar.

Considering you are manufacturing the claim that I called you a liar, perhaps you ought to be offended by yourself. I didn’t call you a liar. I just pointed to some facts that showed that coal continues to provide a considerable fraction of electricity generation in Britain.

My employment as part of the UK coal industry did end when that industry was closed in 1995 (how could an industry which does not exist employ me?). Of course, and as you say, the UK electricity industry continues to use (now imported) coal, but I have never worked for it.

Okay, so I amend my description of you as “a member of the British coal industry” to “a former member of the British coal industry”. Happy now?

Joel Shore had written;
“And, I doubt that you would oppose it [i.e. pseudoscience] in all contexts. Imagine the following: Let’s say that your coal industry (and the power industry in general) were being threatened by politicians who were trotting out their pet scientists to support …”

That was extremely offensive because I did not need to imagine it: as I explained in my reply at May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am,
(a) it was a description of what had happened to trash my career nearly two decades ago (I was the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal – a.k.a. the National Coal Board – based at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment which closed when politicians closed British Coal)
and
(b) it is a matter of record that (as, during and after those events) I DID “oppose” the use of pseudoscience as an excuse for what the politicians did.

Clearly, Shore may have been ignorant of those facts and, therefore, he may not have been aware of the offensive nature of what he had written.

You are not are not quoting my entire scenario. While part of the scenario may have happened, in your opinion, to the coal industry in the U.K., the scenario went on to imagine that it was due to concerns of EMF from powerlines, an example of a scientific hypothesis that (as opposed to climate change) has not garnered a scientific consensus.

I think, however, that this whole incident and how you took great offense at my hypothetical scenario (which in certain ways apparently hit too close to home in your view) has been very instructive in helping us to understand your motivations. I had thought that you were motivated at least to some extent in your opinions on climate change by the industry that I thought (incorrectly, apparently) you were involved in. It now seems that you are instead motivated by a personal vindetta brought about by your opinion that the evil environmentalists and whoever-else “trash[ed] your career”. However, unfortunately, that does little to change my opinion of your lack of objectivity.

Richard: And, by the way, I might I add that I feel your pain. As a result of a big technological change along with poor corporate management in dealing with that change, plus a severe recession / financial crisis brought on in large measure by an attitude of market fundamentalism that resulted in essentially no regulation of dangerous financial practices, I have gone in the past few years from a well-paying corporate research scientist job (at Kodak) to a teaching job that is about a 60% pay cut from what I was making before (and longer hours!).

Bigtix says at 3/5/2012 – yes that’s a logical date format, all you American types – 3 of 5 of 2012 :) at 7:49:

“Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?”

I didn’t.

When you posted that question you were either jesting or simply demonstrating that you either do not read or do not understand points made by others.

I suggest that you again (?) read everything that Richard, I and others have written in this discussion and try to understand all the points made, then, not before, return to the discussion, if you would like to do so.

Laurie Williams says:
May 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Bigtix says at 3/5/2012 – yes that’s a logical date format, all you American types – 3 of 5 of 2012 :) at 7:49:
“Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?”
I didn’t.
_____________________________________________________________
Laurie, I disagree with some of Richard comments. His comments were not perfect.
Our problem was that Richard did not agree with the consensus in science in principle. Please see this:
– – – –
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm
BIGTIX:
At May 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say;
“This is just unbelievable that scientists so far, even in the few cases or trivial, have not reached consensus.”
“NO! If they “reached consensus” then they would not be scientists.” (A new measure; everybody can be a scientist!).
– – –
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“….Therefore, consensus does not play any part in science..” (Not true!)
AND….
“Of course, an apparent consensus will exist concerning issues in a mature science because most practitioners will agree on the interpretation of the totality of existing evidence. But the conduct of science stops if a true consensus occurs.” (In conflict with above statement)!
AND…
“Politics uses selected evidence (n.b. NOT the totality of evidence) to advocate or to justify policies and/or actions. And consensus is an important objective of politics because it encourages people to accept the desired actions and policies.” (Partially not true).
AND…
“Being a scientist does not preclude a person from also being a politician (e.g. Benjamin Franklin). But a person cannot act simultaneously as a scientist and act as a politician: the two activities are mutually exclusive BECAUSE (Heh! look at the title of this article; is the climate science political – A scientist can think politically)
“(a) Attainment of a consensus prevents the conduct of science
But
(b) Attainment of a consensus is an objective of politics.”
– – – –
It was right here that I said: 2 x 2 = 4. We need certainty in this regard.
This consensus does not stop the progress of science. This will contribute to the progress of the work. Consensus is essential for the evolution of the science. We need a strong foundation for the Advancement of it. Consensus doesn’t belong to the politicians only.
Secondly, I referred to the issue of 1 = 1 which, some scientists for any reason do not tell things honestly. Sometimes they insist that 1 = 2 is correct. Richard did not understand me here. With this example, I tried to say that some scientists are misleading the people. In fact they are a major obstacle to real scientists to reach consensus. The problem is not the politicians only. I wished I had talks with Richard about the “consensus” as the main axis, nor in minutiae theorems.
As you see, I reviewed once again Richard comments. What about you?
Take care